Madras High Court
P.Ramalingam vs State By on 13 October, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.803 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.803 of 2018
P.Ramalingam ... Appellant
Vs.
State by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
(Cr.No.07/2012/AC/CB). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the records in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2014 dated 29.11.2018
on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur/Special Court for Trial of
Cases Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page No.1 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
Crl.A.No.803 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted by judgment dated 29.11.2018 in Special
C.C.No.21 of 2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur (Special
Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and
sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for offence
under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was convicted
and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for
offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Challenging the same, present criminal appeal is filed.
2.Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/PW2, a
Realtor, purchased 2 ¼ cent vacant land in his name and in the name of his
wife from one Aslamkhan of Uthukuli on 29.05.2012 for a sum of
Rs.30,32,300/-. PW2 decided to build 5 houses in the said vacant land and he
applied for plan approval to Tiruppur Corporation with relevant documents,
building plan xerox copy of ownership and demand draft receipt for
Rs.3,605/- and met the appellant, Building Inspector/Assistant Engineer on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
10.07.2012 and submitted the application. The appellant perused the
application, acknowledged the receipt of application and demand draft with
instruction to meet him for plan approval on 13.08.2012. Accordingly, on
13.08.2012, at 11.30 hours, PW2 met the appellant in his office, enquired
about his plan approval, at that time, it was informed that the plan approval
was not ready and the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as illegal
gratification other than legal remuneration for approval of building plan to
construct residential building. When PW2 expressed his inability to pay such
huge amount as bribe and requested for reduction, the appellant refused to
reduce the demand. In the meanwhile, PW2's daughter marriage was held on
29.08.2012 and he was busy with the marriage, after the marriage, PW2 met
the appellant on 30.08.2012 at about 16.00 hours and requested for some
reduction. But the appellant reiterated his earlier demand and instructed PW2
to come with the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- on 31.08.2012.
3.PW2 willing to pay the bribe, on 31.08.2012 lodged a complaint
(Ex.P4) to PW12/Trap Laying Officer, who received the complaint (Ex.P4),
registered FIR (Ex.P16) in Crime No.7/2012/AC/CB for offence under Section
7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at about 07.45 hours. Thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
PW12/TLO called PW3, Mr.Manikandan from Agriculture Department and
another witness Mr.K.Gurusamy, Village Administrative Officer of
Puliakulam, Coimbatore District to be the witnesses for trap. At about 09.00
hours, both official witnesses reached the office and PW12/TLO introduced
them to PW2 and details of complaint (Ex.P4) explained and verified. At
about 09.15 hours, entrustment proceedings initiated and demonstrated to
PW2 and both official witnesses, thereafter, the trap amount of Rs.10,000/-
smeared with phenolphthalein powder, kept in PW2's pocket and informed
that only if the appellant demanded for bribe amount, the same to be handed
over and PW2 to give pre-arranged signal. Both PW2 and accompanying
witness/PW3 were dropped near the appellant's office at Nallur Zonal Office,
Tirupur-Tharapuram Road, both went inside the office at about 11.30 hours.
PW12/TLO, other official witness Mr.Gurusamy and trap team took position
keeping a watch. At about 11.35 hours, both PW2 and PW3 came out without
giving any pre-arranged signal, informing the appellant not in the office.
When the appellant was called through mobile phone (Mobile
No.9865747610), he informed that he was in eviction duty in Mannarai,
Uthukuli Road and asked PW2 to come there. Thereafter, PW2 and trap team
gone there. Few meters before Divya Bakery, PW2 and PW3 got down, both
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
were again reminded of earlier instructions, other trap team took position and
watching PW2 & PW3. PW2 & PW3 met the appellant who took them to a
nearby lane opposite to Divya Bakery. The appellant enquired whether PW2
brought the bribe amount and collected the amount, counted using both his
hands, kept the bribe amount in his pant right side pocket and informed that
the work will be completed and asked PW2 to collect the plan approval in the
evening. Thereafter, PW2 and PW3 came to the main road and PW2 gave pre-
arranged signal at 12.00 hours.
4.On getting pre-arranged signal, PW12/TLO enquired PW2 and
PW3/accompanying witness who identified the appellant and confirmed the
receipt of bribe amount, thereafter, the appellant enquired, at that time, he was
shivering and informed unknowingly he collected the bribe amount. Then,
PW12/TLO informed that phenolphthalein test can be conducted in the road or
in his office. The appellant informed that the phenolphthalein test can be
conducted in the office, thereafter, the trap team took the appellant to the
Water Tank Office in Tharapuram Road at about 12.25 hours where the
appellant's both hand wash collected, both turned pink and tested positive
confirming appellant receiving bribe amount, hand wash collected in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
bottles (MO2 & MO3). The pant pocket wash collected in another bottle is
MO4. The appellant was given alternate clothes and the pant seized is MO5.
The trap amount is MO1. At about 12.40 hours, PW4, Assistant Executive
Engineer/Assistant Commissioner, Nallur Zone came there, in his presence,
the pant wash MO4 collected and the pant seized. The collected hand wash
(MO2, MO3 & MO4) sent to the forensic examination and PW11, Scientific
Officer confirmed the same and issued Chemical Analysis Report (Ex.P15).
Thereafter, the appellant enquired about the file pertaining to PW2, the
appellant handed over the file from the bureau. The appellant informed that
though his office was in Nallur, but for field inspection and removal of
encroachment, he was having a work place in Water Tank Office (Sub-Office)
in Tharapuram Road since it was convenient. Thereafter, the plan approval
file containing pages 1 to 87 handed over to PW4 to further process the same.
The Attendance Register and Register of Registration of Application for
licenses or construction or Re-Construction of buildings (Exs.P8 & P9)
seized. The appellant was arrested at about 14.00 hours and produced before
the Magistrate for remand. In the meanwhile, search conducted in the house
of the appellant, thereafter, investigation handed over to PW13 who conducted
further investigation, recorded the statements of PW2, PW3/accompanying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
witness, official witness Mr.Gurusamy and other witnesses namely Assistant
Executive Engineer/PW4, Executive Engineer/PW5, another Assistant
Executive Engineer/PW6 and Junior Assistant/PW7 in Tiruppur Corporation
Office.
5.PW2 gave the statement (Ex.P14). PW8 & PW9 are Sanitary
Inspector and Sanitary Supervisor, who were with the appellant during
removal of encroachment, both confirmed two persons came, met the
appellant, the appellant was talking to them, received money, thereafter, the
appellant was taken by a team of officials from the spot. After conclusion of
investigation, charge sheet along with statements and documents submitted
before the Sanctioning Authority/PW1 who accorded sanction (Ex.P1) under
Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, thereafter, charge sheet
filed before the trial Court. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1
to PW13 examined and Exs.P1 to P23 marked and MO1 to MO5 produced.
On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked.
On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
in this case, the appellant falsely implicated for the misdeeds committed by the
officials in the Zonal Office and in the Head Office of the Corporation of
Tiruppur. The appellant's role is limited to sanction the plan approval, he is to
conduct field inspection and submit report to the Assistant Executive
Engineer/PW6. He further submitted that PW2's complaint (Ex.P4) is with
false particulars and the appellant had no reason and never met PW2 on
13.08.2012. Referring to the building plan application (Ex.P2), the learned
Senior Counsel submitted that Ex.P2 submitted to the Office of Assistant
Executive Engineer who on 11.07.2012 received the same, forwarded to the
appellant for field inspection. In Ex.P2, there is no signature or any marking
by the appellant. The original plan of the site (Ex.P3) forwarded to the
appellant, who received the same, visited the site and gave his approval on
18.07.2012. On the same day, the Assistant Executive Engineer/PW6 and the
Executive Engineer/PW5 both approved and forwarded the file to the City
Engineer on 30.07.2012 and thereafter on 31.07.2012, the Commissioner,
Corporation of Tiruppur granted approval. Thus, after 18.07.2012, there is no
role for the appellant to deal with the file again and never comes back to the
appellant. The file is processed in the Commissioner Office, thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
forwarded to the Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Commissioner, who
is the authorized officer to issue proceedings and to inform PW2 about
approval. PW7/Junior Assistant confirms the procedure. For what reason, it
was not done till 31.08.2012 is not within the knowledge or control of the
appellant. Except in the original plan copy and inspection report (Exs.P3 &
P12), there is no signature of the appellant, which conclusively proves that
after 18.07.2012, the appellant had no role, nothing to do with the application
and approval of building plan.
7.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is
discrepancy with regard to place of recovery and seizure proceedings. In the
Recovery Mahazar (Ex.P10), it is recorded that on 31.08.2012 at 12.30 hours,
the recovery proceedings took place in Water Tank Office, Tharapuram Road.
In Ex.P10, it is clearly recorded that the appellant's office is the Nallur Zonal
Office, Tiruppur-Tharapuram Road and the Attendance Register (Ex.P8) and
Application Register (Ex.P9) produced by PW4/Assistant Executive Engineer
and Assistant Commissioner of Zone-3 of Tiruppur Corporation with
authentication proves the same. He further submitted that Exs.P8 & P9 are
attested by PW4 and likewise, in the Recovery Mahazar (Ex.P10), PW4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
signed in pages 6, 7 & 8 to confirm PW4 came to the place of recovery on the
request of PW12/TLO at 12.45 hours. The attendance register (Ex.P8)
confirms PW4 is the Head of the Office. Likewise, in Ex.P9 (Register of
Registration of Application for licenses or construction or Re-construction of
building), it is recorded in Serial No.331, the receipt of the application in the
Assistant Commissioner, Zone-3 Office on 11.07.2012 which confirms that
the appellant not received the application and the application received on
11.07.2012 in PW6's office forwarded to the appellant by PW7 on the same
day, thereafter, the appellant conducted field inspection, on 18.07.2012 with
his recommendation submitted to PW6, thereafter, PW5 approved on the same
day, then the City Engineer on 30.07.2012 further recommended and the
Commissioner, Tiruppur Corporation on 31.07.2012 gave his approval and
issued orders. Then, the file comes back to Assistant Executive
Engineer/Assistant Commissioner who is authorized to issue proceedings. In
this case, from whom and how PW2's file seized are not known and there is no
reason for these files to be in the custody of the appellant, that to, in the Water
Tank Office, Tharapuram Road. PW2 in his evidence not specific of recovery
in Water Tank Office, Tharapuram Road. Through PW2, Exs.P2 to P7
marked, but these documents were in the Nallur Zonal Office-III of Tiruppur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
where the appellant, PW4, PW6 & PW7 all posted and functioning.
8.He further submitted that PW12/TLO in his evidence admits that he is
aware that the appellant is only a Field Officer and his duty is to inspect the
site, forward his recommendation and he is not an authority to issue building
approval. Though PW2 stated that he submitted the documents to the
appellant with necessary fee and obtained acknowledgment, nothing produced
by him. PW12/TLO confirmed that the office of the appellant is Nallur Zonal
Office and the trap team had gone to Nallur Zonal Office. Further,
PW12/TLO re-confirmed that had PW2 & PW3 deposed that the recovery
proceedings took place in Water Tank Office, it is false. PW12/TLO himself
confirms the place of recovery proceedings is contrary to the evidence of PW2
& PW3, hence, the place of recovery proceedings gets shifted and Ex.P10
becomes doubtful. Added to it, the presence of PW2 & PW3 becomes highly
doubtful. PW7, Junior Assistant in the Zonal Office confirms that on
16.07.2012, nine applications received in the Zonal Office registered in the
application register (Ex.P9) and handed over to the appellant. PW7 further
confirmed that after the Commissioner's approval of building sanction, the
follow-up works to be done in the Commissioner Office, thereafter in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
Zonal Office and the appellant has got no role thereafter. Ex.P13 is the
Acknowledgment Register confirming the forwarding of applications to the
appellant. Thus, by documentary evidence, it is proved that the appellant after
the field inspection on 18.07.2012, had no role thereafter and for what reason,
the file was held up in the Zonal Office, the appellant is not the reason. PW2,
a Realtor, to somehow get the approval, gave false complaint. PW12/TLO not
conducted any background check to ascertain truthfulness of the complaint
and in a haste laid the trap, PW12/TLO with official witnesses (PW3 &
Mr.Gurusamy) and projected a trap case against the appellant.
PW13/Investigating Officer not conducted independent investigation and
concluded the investigation on the line of PW12/TLO and with improper
sanction (Ex.P1) filed charge sheet.
9.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in this case, neither
the mobile phone of the appellant & PW2 seized nor CDR particulars and
tower locations collected to confirm the demand made by the appellant
through mobile phone on 13.08.2012, 30.08.2012 and 31.08.2012 and
compelled PW2 to pay the amount. Even prior to the complaint (Ex.P4) dated
31.08.2012, the building approval granted one month prior on 31.07.2012,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
hence, the appellant had no reason to demand any illegal gratification and no
work was pending with him. In this case, the Court below failed to consider
the above aspects despite there are vital contradictions in the prosecution case,
but glossing over the same and convicting the appellant, is not proper. Hence,
he prayed for acquittal.
10.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent/Vigilance and Anti-Corruption strongly opposed the submissions
of learned Senior Counsel and submitted that PW2 purchased 2¼ cent vacant
land and intended to construct a house and he submitted an application for
building permission on 10.07.2012 with necessary fee. The appellant received
the application form, gave acknowledgment, thereafter, visited the site, hence,
he was having interface with PW2. After visiting the site, the appellant
informed PW2 to come and meet him in his office on 13.08.2012. PW2 went
to the appellant's office on 13.08.2012, the appellant made a demand of
Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for processing building plan approval.
PW2 pleaded that he is not in a position to pay such huge amount. Since
PW2's daughter marriage was on 29.08.2012, till that time he was busy. After
the marriage, on 30.08.2012, PW2 met the appellant and sought for plan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
approval, again the demand reiterated. Not willing to pay the bribe amount,
on 31.08.2012 PW2 lodged a complaint (Ex.P4) to PW12/TLO. Finding that
it is a clear case of demand of bribe, PW12 enlisted the service of official
witnesses namely PW3 and one Mr.Gurusamy. Both appeared before
PW12/TLO at 09.00 hours and they clarified doubts with PW2 about the
demand of bribe by the appellant. PW2 produced the demanded amount
(Rs.1000/- X 7 and Rs.500/- X 6), thereafter, pre-trap proceedings conducted.
The other official witness Mr.Gurusamy, Village Administrative Officer asked
to handle the bribe amount and to dip his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate
solution and the solution made no changes. Thereafter, phenolphthalein
powder smeared to the currency notes, Mr.Gurusamy again handled the
currency notes, thereafter his fingers dipped in the solution and the solution
turned pink in colour. All washed their hands in the office, thereafter all left
to the office of the appellant by 10.30 a.m.
11.PW2, official witnesses and trap team left the office and PW2 &
PW3 dropped near Zonal Office-III, Tiruppur Corporation at Nallur,
Tharapuram Road. PW2 & PW3 reminded that only if demand for bribe is
made by the appellant, the amount to be paid and to give pre-arranged signal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
At about 11.30 hours, both PW2 and PW3 went inside the office and came
back at 11.35 hours without giving any signal. When enquried, they informed
that the appellant was not in the office. The appellant was contacted through
the mobile phone, the appellant informed that he was in eviction duty in
Mannarai, Uthukuli Road and he asked PW2 to come there, the trap team had
gone there, thereafter, PW2 & PW3 met the appellant at about 11.50 hours.
The appellant was standing in the main road, on seeing PW2, the appellant
took PW2 & PW3 to a nearby lane opposite to Divya Bakery and received the
bribe amount which was witnessed by PW8 & PW9, Sanitary Inspector and
Sanitary Supervisor were in the eviction duty. On getting pre-arranged signal,
at 12.05 hours PW12/TLO enquired the appellant and the appellant informed
that unknowingly he collected the bribe amount and the appellant requested to
be taken to the nearby Water Tank Office for recovery proceedings and not in
the road. The appellant, PW2, both official witnesses and the trap team had
gone to Water Tank Office at 12.25 hours. The appellant admitted the receipt
of bribe amount from PW2, thereafter, recovery proceedings commenced,
hand washes (MO2 & MO3) of the appellant collected. In the meanwhile,
PW4, Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Commissioner was informed
about the trap who reached there at 12.45 hours. In his presence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
appellant's pant wash taken (MO4) and the pant recovered (MO5). PW4's
participation was after 12.45 hours, hence, in pages 6, 7 & 8 of Ex.P10, PW4
signed. Thereafter, the files of PW2 handed over to PW4 to further process
and to issue proceedings for building plan approval. From the file, it is found
that the appellant completed the field inspection on 18.07.2012 and forwarded
the file to his superior officers namely Assistant Executive Engineer and
Executive Engineer who all signed the same on the same day, thereafter, the
files was put to the City Engineer, who approved on 30.07.2012 and the
Corporation Commissioner gave his approval on 31.07.2012, thereafter, the
file returned back, PW4 issued proceedings.
12.It is further submitted that the appellant's demand, acceptance of
bribe and recovery proved by the evidence of PW2 to PW10. The files
recovered from the appellant confirms the appellant knowing that the approval
granted by the Corporation Commissioner on 31.07.2012, he withheld the
building approval files of PW2. PW7, the Junior Assistant confirmed that the
appellant retained the building approval files of PW2. In this case, the
procedure of processing the files are clearly spoken by PW4, PW5 and PW6.
PW2 gave 164 statement, recorded by PW8, Judicial Magistrate No.VII,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
Coimbatore. PW11, Scientific Officer/Assistant Director confirmed the
presence of phenolphthalein powder in the Sodium Carbonate solution (MO2
& MO3) which confirms the appellant handled the bribe amount. PW12/TLO
after successful trap, handed over the investigation to PW13/Investigating
Officer, who conducted further investigation, recorded statements, collected
all materials and placed all the evidence and materials before the sanctioning
authority/PW1, who accorded sanction for prosecution (Ex.P1), thereafter,
PW13 filed charge sheet before the trial Court. During trial, PW1 to PW13
examined and Exs.P1 to P23 marked and MO1 to MO5 produced. On the side
of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. The points
raised by the appellant before this Court, were raised before the trial Court and
the trial Court rightly rejected the same and convicted the appellant. In view
of the above, the judgment of the trial Court needs no interference.
13.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
14.In this case, on 10.07.2012, PW2 submitted application (Ex.P2) for
building plan approval with relevant documents and necessary fees to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
Tiruppur Corporation. The application (Ex.P2) was received by the Executive
Engineer/PW5 who on 11.07.2012 forwarded the same to the appellant, the
note file to Ex.P2 confirms the same. The receipt of the application registered
in Ex.P9 (Register of Registration of Application for licenses or construction
or Re-construction of building) confirms that on 11.07.2012, the application
received and numbered. The Distribution Register (Ex.P13) confirms that
nine applications including the application of PW2 in E5/331/12 handed over
to the appellant on 16.07.2021. The appellant as Building Inspector/Assistant
Engineer is to do field inspection. The appellant visited the vacant site of
PW2 which is in a mixed residential zone, finding the plan is as per the Rules,
recommended permission can be granted and gave Inspection Report (Ex.P12)
on 18.07.2012. The appellant made recommendation for approval and
forwarded Ex.P2 to the Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant
Commissioner/PW6 on 18.07.2012. The Assistant Executive
Engineer/Assistant Commissioner/PW6 approved and forwarded the file to the
Executive Engineer/PW5, the Executive Engineer/PW5 recommended and
forwarded the files to the City Engineer, on 30.07.2012 who approved and
forwarded to the Commissioner, Tiruppur Corporation, thereafter, the
Commissioner, Tiruppur Corporation approved the building plan (Ex.P3) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
planning permission (Ex.P12) granted on 31.07.2012. Thereafter, the file
came back to the Corporation office, then to the Zonal Office-III, thereafter, it
is for PW6, the then Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Commissioner,
Corporation of Tiruppur to issue proceedings based on the order of
Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruppur and PW6 is the authorized officer to
issue proceedings. In the meanwhile, the Corporation Commissioner approval
to be informed/intimated to the applicant. In this case, after the approval of
Commissioner on 31.07.2012, procedures not followed. The procedures
confirm after site inspection, the file kept never comes back to the appellant.
15.In this case, PW7/Junior Assistant confirmed that building plan
applications will be submitted to the Office of Executive Engineer/PW5 who
will receive the same, make his initial and forward to E-Section to record the
same in the Register. The note file of Ex.P2 confirms that on 11.07.2012 on
receipt of building plan for approval, the same entered in the Register of
Registration of Application in Serial No.331 on 11.07.2012. The file was
forwarded to the appellant on 16.07.2012 recorded in Distribution Register
(Ex.P13) and field inspection conducted by the appellant on 18.07.2012.
Exs.P3 & P12 confirms the same. After field inspection on 18.07.2012, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
plan approval file forwarded to Assistant Executive Engineer/PW6, Executive
Engineer/PW5 on 18.07.2012 and the City Engineer recommended for
approval on 30.07.2012 and the Commissioner on 31.07.2012 approved and
granted permission. Thereafter, the building plan approval will be forwarded
to the Office of Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Commissioner who
has been authorized to issue proceedings and to inform the approval to the
applicant/PW2. This is the office procedure. PW7 to wriggle out from the
quandary, in defensive gives an answer that after approval of the Corporation
Commissioner, the file was not returned to him and the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption officials gave the file of PW2 for issuance of proceedings on
31.08.2012 after the trap. When there is established procedure for movement
of file Ex.P2, the allegation file retained and withheld by the appellant and the
appellant made demand for process and issuance of building approval does
not arise which gains muster confirming appellant framed in the above case.
PW4, Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Commissioner confirms that he
is the authorized officer to issue the proceedings. Thus, after 18.07.2012, the
building plan approval file will not come back to the appellant and he has no
role thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
16.In this case, as per Ex.P10, the recovery proceedings took place in
Water Tank Office, Tharapuram Road, the Water Tank Office is only an
auxiliary place and the appellant's office is at Nallur Zonal Office, Tiruppur-
Tharapuram Road. All files pertaining to building approval will be
maintained and retained at Nallur Zonal Office. PW12/TLO confirms that the
evidence of PW2 and PW3 that recovery proceedings took place in Water
Tank Office, Tharapuram Road, is false. PW12/TLO asserts that the recovery
proceedings took place in Zonal Office, Nallur and not in the Water Tank
Office at Tharapuram Road. It is to be seen that PW2 is silent about the place
of recording of recovery proceedings. PW3's version is that recovery
proceedings conducted at Water Tank Office, Tharapuram Road. But it is to
be seen that in Exs.P2, P3, P5, P6 P7, P8, P9, P12 & P13, there is no reference
to show how, from where and from whom these documents seized. In the
seizure mahazar (Ex.P10), it is recorded that Exs.P8 & P9 certified copies
handed over by PW4, Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Commissioner.
Though it is recorded building plan permission file pages 1 to 87 produced by
the appellant, there is no reference in Ex.P10 with regard to procedure in
seizing the documents by recording the particulars of documents. Even Form
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
91 not produced to confirm the seizure of file from the Water Tank Office to
gain acceptability. It is confirmed in the Corporation Office, file movement
are recorded in registers as per the established procedure. In this case, the
receipt of application, endorsement to the appellant, giving file number, serial
number all made in Ex.P2 note sheet, Register of Application (Ex.P9),
Distribution Register (Ex.P13) produced, the office procedure is that the
Assistant Executive Engineer/PW6 to have issued the proceedings confirmed
by PW7, then how the building sanction file of PW2 can be retained by the
appellant, no materials produced by the prosecution to confirm the same.
Hence, the recovery/seizure of documents from the Water Tank Office,
Tharapuram Road becomes doubtful and suspicious. Except Ex.P3 building
plan and Ex.P12 the field inspection report, both recommended by the
appellant on 18.07.2012, thereafter the appellant has no role in granting
approval and permission. The office records confirm that after field
inspection, it is the other higher officials, who shall deal with the application
file and with their recommendation, finally, the Commissioner of Corporation
approves and grants permission. In this case, PW6 was the authorized person
then to issue proceedings for building approval and the Corporation officials
to inform the applicant after the approval but not done, no explanation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
17.In this case, admitted position is that on 31.07.2012, the approval
granted but for more than a month till the date of trap, no intimation sent to
PW2. On the other hand, PW2 for the reasons best known complained that he
met the appellant, handed over application form (Ex.P2) with necessary fee
and received the acknowledgment. The application (Ex.P2) and Registers
confirm that in the Office of Executive Engineer, applications submitted and
registration number given. Though PW2 stated that he produced the proof of
acknowledgment and other details to PW12/TLO, but PW12 confirms no such
documents submitted except the complaint (Ex.P4).
18.It is projected that there was mobile phone conversation between
PW2 and the appellant and the demand was made even through the mobile
phone. But neither the mobile phone of the appellant nor of PW2 and CDR
particulars or tower location collected despite specific mention of mobile
number in the complaint (Ex.P4). PW12/TLO and PW13/Investigating
Officer had not taken any steps to collect these documents which would have
been a vital link to the prosecution case. Withholding the same leads to
adverse inference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
19.In this case, the place of recovery proceedings is shifted, hence, it
becomes doubtful, whether the entire recovery proceedings conducted in
Water Tank Office, Tharapuram Road or continued in Nallur Zonal Office.
The evidence of PW2, PW3 & PW12 are contradictory to each other. Once
the scene of occurrence is shifted, doubt arises on the presence of witnesses at
the relevant point of time at the relevant place. Added to it, the evidence of
Assistant Executive Engineer/PW4, Executive Engineer/PW5, another
Assistant Executive Engineer/PW6 and Junior Assistant/PW7 confirmed the
office procedure and the limited role of the appellant to conduct field
inspection, thereafter, the file does not come back to the appellant.
20.It is to be seen that PW12/TLO admits that in the remand report, he
has not stated the place of occurrence/place of recovery and the documents
seized. This strengthens the case of the appellant that PW12/TLO has not
come with true facts. Further, on the date of demand and trap, the purpose of
demand to issue/facilitate issuance of building plan permission (Ex.P12) to
PW2 already completed, hence, there is no reason or justification for demand
of any bribe by the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
21.In the evidence of PW1/Sanctioning Authority and in the sanction
order (Ex.P1), it is recorded that PW12/TLO after introducing himself and the
official witnesses (PW3 & Mr.Gurusamy) to the appellant, he brought the
appellant to his office at about 12.25 hours and conducted phenolphthalein
test on the appellant's finger of both hand, which proved positive. In the
sanction order (Ex.P1), it is also recorded that PW12/TLO left the Vigilance
and Anti Corruption Office, Salem by 10.30 hours and reached near office of
the appellant i.e., Tirupur City Municipal Corporation, Nallur Zone, Tirupur at
about 11.30 hours but TLO, decoy and accompanying witness, left from
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office, Coimbatore. It is further recorded that
the appellant was engaged in eviction work at Mannarai, Uthukuli Road and
instructed PW2 to come there with the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- and PW2
met the appellant near Divya Bakery. Nowhere in the sanction order (Ex.P1),
there is any mention of recovery proceedings in Water Tank Office at
Tharapuram Road. PW1 in his evidence confirms that the case of the
prosecution is that till 30.08.2012, the building sanction not approved. The
sanctioning authority/PW1 not seen the building plan application of PW2
dated 10.07.2012 (Ex.P2), Plan (Ex.P3) and the field inspection report
(Ex.P12) submitted by the appellant on 18.07.2012 to his higher officials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
Assistant Executive Engineer/PW6, Executive Engineer/PW5, City Engineer
all recommending for plan approval and the Corporation Commissioner
granting building permission on 31.07.2012. Further, PW1 confirms that he is
also not certain, how the file (Ex.P2) will be dealt after the orders of the
Corporation Commissioner. PW1 confirms that he has not seen any of the
files recovered from Tiruppur Corporation office, cumulatively will prove
non-application of mind and hollowness in the sanction order (Ex.P1)
22.The entire case rest on the building plan files dealt by the officials of
Corporation of Tiruppur. In the absence of perusal of the building plan
approval file and not understanding the office procedure, then there is no
independent application of mind. Granting sanction for prosecution is a
sacrosanct act of the sanctioning authority, who shall study all materials
submitted if required call for clarifications and thereafter to independently
arrive at the satisfaction and grant sanction. In this case, it is not followed.
23.The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Ameer John
reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273 had held that ordinarily, before passing an
order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In this case,
despite the entire case rest on the building plan, files dealt by the officials of
Corporation of Tiruppur not produced and perused by the sanctioning
authority/PW1. PW1 admits that he has not seen any of the files recovered
from Tiruppur Corporation while according sanction for prosecution. In
Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) 5 SCR 104, the
Hon'ble Apex Court summaries the legal position which is as follows:
“(a)Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of
the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(b)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification
and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in
issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the
nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c)Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by
circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and
documentary evidence.”
24.In Soundarajan v. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Vigilance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
and Anti Corruption, Dindigul reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 314, the
Hon'ble Apex Court had held that Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be said to be established unless
both the demand and acceptance are established.
25.In Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased, through his LR) v. State of
Punjab reported in 2017 (3) SCC (Crl.) 607, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held
that mere recovery of money is not sufficient to sustain a conviction under
Prevention of Corruption Act unless the prosecution proves demand and
voluntary acceptance of the bribe amount.
26.In view of serious infirmities and deficiencies in the case of the
prosecution, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed
to discharge its burden of proving demand, acceptance of illegal gratification
beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, this Court finds that the sanction order
(Ex.P1) vitiated due to non-application of mind and the prosecution failed to
prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be
invoked in the absence of proof of demand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
27.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the
impugned judgment, dated 29.11.2018 in Special C.C.No.21 of 2014 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur (Special Court for trial of
Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). The appellant is acquitted.
Bail bond if any executed shall stand cancelled. Fine amount if any paid shall
be refunded.
13.10.2025
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruppur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
3.The Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN
13.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:32:53 pm )
